tv Charlie Rose WHUT October 26, 2009 9:00am-10:00am EDT
>> rose: welcome to the broadcast. following up on our interview last night with lee kwan wu of singapore. tonight steven roach a former chief economist with morgan stanley who is still with the company but spends most of his time in china. >> the 60th anniversary of the people's republic of china. but the first 30 years were pretty awful and the next 30 years have been spectacular. the difference is they have really put a huge focus on transitioning this economy from one that was owned by the state to that is more of a market-based economy. they've taken huge risks in terms of reforms, layoffs, building market structures, building companies that we've never seen before, and to be on the inside and watching, watching that risk taking up close is pretty fascinating experience for anyone. and i love every bit of it.
>> rose: turning to sports and a busy weekend, we talk to peter king of "sports illustrated". >> one of the things that football players, it's underrated because a lot of times you just see them out there banging into each other, and you don't really get a good sense that when you're around a team on wednesday or thursday, they'll spend four or five hours in and out of meetings, brief meetings, the quarterbacks meeting with each other to talk about what they're going to do that day at practice and what exactly is in the game plane plan. and then maybe two hours of practice, and then they're back in for a couple more meetings. and one of the things that i've always thought about football that i say i once did this thing with brett farve where i did 40 seconds to the start of a play, and what he does. and, charlie, when i finished the story, from the start of the play to thend, the story was 8900 words long, and that's to
asia. for much of his career he served as the firm's chief economist. his new book is called "the next asia-- opportunities and challenges for a new globalization." i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> good to see you, charlie. >> rose: you left wall street to go live in china. >> i did. about three years ago, your friend and mine, john mack called me up and said 25 years as an economist, a long time, good job. how would you like to do someing different and be the chairman of morgan stanley's business activities in asia. and i told john i thought he was nuts. i had the best job. i wasn't going to leave it. he said, "think about it." and john when he says, "think about it," there's a fair amount of emphasis there. i did think about it. i'd built fabulous relationships over the years in asia. i was passionate about the region. i thought i knew it well but i knew from my gut it would be a lot different from the inside than the outside and i said yeah
i'm going to go for it. i've been out there two and a half years. i have no regrets. i love it. i have learned an awful lot about asia and i thought it was time to put ift down in a book and get it down there when the world is very focused on asia, it's own challenges and its role in the global economy. >> rose: what are you loved and what have you learned? >> what i am most passionate about in terms of asia is what they've done, especially in china, over the last 30 years. big celebration, 60th anniversary of the people's republic of china, but the first 30 years were pretty awful. the next 30 years have been spectacular. and the difference is they have really put huge focus on transitioning this economy from one that was owned by the state to that is more of a market-based economy. they've taken huge risks in terms of reform, layoffs, building market structures, building companies that we've never seen before. and to be on the inside and watching, watching that risk
taking up close is a pretty fascinating experien for anyone. and i love every bit of it. >> rose: do you have access there, the kind that you might have here? >> i have-- i've been really blessed and fortunate. when i first start writing about china in depth, probably about a dozen years ago, i wrote a piece in the "financial times" called, "this china is different," right after the financial crisis in 97-98. the finance minister of china at the time read it, and summod me to meet with him, believe it or not, in a boat in the back harbors of seattle on a saturday in mid-1999. we hit it off. he opened one door after another for me in china, including introducing me to the premiere and it's been nonstop ever since. it helps to be in the right place at the right time and be lucky. >> rose: howo they see their future? there was that famous speech in
which was said-- to the alarm of some china watchers and to the alarm of people in china which was-- surprise, surprise this economy may not be sustainable. it may not be as good as you think it is. you remember the quote. >> i was there. this was back in march of 2007, the end of the big congress they have in beijing, the national people's congress. he said the economy, while it appears to be strong on the surface, beneath the rface is unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated, and ultimately, unsustainable. and we have got to address these issues before it's too late. and it was really a quote that i used as a setup for much of this book. and interestingly enough, in mid-september, there was a big kinchs again-- conference again that i attended, and you would
expect the premiere to come out and say, "we're recovering. we're leading the world. wore proud of what we've done." he said, "no, this is recovery is fragile. it's tentative, and it continues to reflect an economy that's unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable. and this is the issue in china right now. the path they're on, as spectacular as it's been, it's dominated by exports. it's dominated by investments. they're under-consumers, they're over-savers. it's very destabilizing and they've got to address it. and this crisis that the world is in right now i think is their wake-up call that they have no choice but to get on with the heavy lifting of addressing these issues. >> rose: and they are? >> they're dragging their heels. they've get to do more. they did a stimulus package that gave them a lot of growth in the first half of 2009, but 88% of that growth, charlie, came in one sector, investment, which is already very top-heavy, and they
funded it with a bonanza of bank lending which if this type of approach continues will compromise loan qualities and cause problems for the bank. >> rose: what did they do with it, dwup infrastructure. >> infrastructure was most of it. you want state-of-the-art infrastructure go to china. there's nothing like it. if you get stuck on the wan van wick here, i think of what it's like to drive to the airport in beijing. >> rose: what's it like? >> the roads are smooth, no bumps. you go to the airport, it is spectacular. >> rose: how fast you can drive? >> well, it depends on the time of the day you pick. you pick a day when there's no traffic, there's no telling how fast you can drive. the problem with driving in china is most of the drivers don't have a lot of driving experience. >> rose: so what china has to de consumer spending so there will be a demand for the products it makes. >> absolutely. i mean-- and here's the issue in china-- chines households save to excess.
their savings rate for the household sector in the year 2000 was about 27%. in the year 2008 it was 37%. so the more income they get the more they save, and the reason they save is because they have no social safety net. their national social security fund, the pillar of the retirement system, has about $82 billion of u.s. dollars, that's $90 a worker of lifetime social security benefits. they did a medical care plan earlier this year. $30 a person for three years. so when you don't have any security for the future, when you-- when your medical benefits don't cover your average expenses, you've got to save, and that inhibits the growth of a broadly based consumer culture. they've got to invest in their safety net and they've got to do now. >> rose: uncoordinated means what? >> it talks about the fragment and aspects of china. there's an old chinese proverb--
the mountains are high and the emperor so far away. th guys in beijing, they may give an order, but beyond beijing people do whatever the heck they want and i think that's very, very true, very fragmented banking sa system of regional governance, and they're trying to pull that together and they're actually making some progress. >> rose: what's happening out there in the regions? are we seeing any local democracy? >> in some pockets of china, especially close to hong kong. there have been some experiments inreely held elections and in political reform. but these are the exception, not the rule. and the fascinating thing about transitioning to a consumer. -based society, you will raise the whole aspirational level of this massive population. it's going to be very hard to do that ultimately. without a more free choice of political leadership. >> rose: but they see economic
growth as their own salvation. >> the two biggest-- well, the two words that always shape my assessment of risk in china are social stability. and they have made the determination they need rapid growth to absorb surplus labor and maintain social stability. without that rapid growth, they do worry about destabilizing events in their population. they've had plenty of them recently. they've had ethnic violence in tibet. they had massive layoffs in one province because of the export collapse. the key for china, i think, is to move away from this fixation on the quantity of growth and now start to think much more about the quality of growth, and that's a better mix of the g.d.p. it's environmental issues. it's resource consumption. they've done so well that they really need to rethink this
growth paradigm. >> rose: but i talk to a lot of people engaged in the work of looking at climate change say not withstanding their refusal to accept established emission standards, they are very committed to solar, they're very committed to electric cars, they're very committed to a range of things that suggest their awareness that growth has the peril of a kind of environmental damage. >> well, i think-- there is a growing consciousness inside of china that open-ended growth has awe lot of negative side effects or what economists call externalities. and excess resource consumption, oil consumption, and pollution are clearly the most obvious of these negative externalities. the question is are they really doing something about it? and there certainly is a lot of advance going on in alternative energy technologies in china. and because of the nature of their system of governance, they
can do nuclear in a way that a society like the u.s. could not even-- so they can move very aggressively in these areas but the bottom line is as long as they have this growth model, it's fixated on exports, fixated on investment, it's dominated by the industrial production, smokestack-type industries, which are very, very biased toward pollution and excess energy consumption. they've get to get out of that model. >> rose: what's their commitnt to some kind of removing the dollar as a reserve currency in the world? >> i think it's all talk right now. the end game is, of course, that the dollar will not be the preeminent anchor of the world financial system at some point in the distance future. >> rose: are they right. what does "distant" mean? >> probably 50, 60, 70 years out. look at china. they're an export economy.
they need a competitive currency to support their export business. if they sold their dollars right now it would undermine their export competitiveness, lose jobs and run the risk of social instability. they're not going to do that. >> rose: it's not in their interest to get rid of the dollar. >> not at all, until they change their economic structure that makes them ls dependent on the currency support to their main engine of growth, which is exports. >> rose: is china different than the rest of asia? >> absolutely. the piece i told you about earlier that the finance minister read a dozen years ago, the title was this sort of trivial title called, "this china is different." and i wrote that because in the asian crisis, all these, you know, economies that we were so envious of were falling boy the wayside. they were devaling their currencies. they had massive account deficits. they were running out of reserves. they had to run to the i.m.f.. china huge save ethey had a
current account surplus. they did not go to the i.m.f.. they did not deval their currency. and they were very, very focused on building the greatest export machine the world had ever seen and executing that construction project by transitioning from a system of state ownership to a system of market-based private ownership. >> rose: is it a joint venture between government and private? >> absolutely. the government still has huge stakes in all--. >> rose: huge stakes meaning the majority? >> in many cases, 50%, 60% are own bide the government. >> rose: what's the possibility of a trade war with china? >> that's sort of up to us, i think. in the years 2005-2007, the u.s. congress, in its infinite wisdom introduced 45 separate piece of anti-china trade legislation. not one of them passed. reason? unemployment rate was 4%. today, we've got a little bit more than 4% unemployment in the u.s. we have a president who in
september imposed sanctions on 35%-- big sanctions-- on the exports of tires coming out of china in the united states. small potatoes. tiny piece of the overall trade between the two countries, but emblematic of a big issue that's looming in 2010. midterm elections coming for a very popular president. the unemployment rate's going to be 9%-plus, maybe higher. and the congress is itchy to push the blame on to somebody else, and that somebody else always seems to be china. so if a bilateral trade bill goes through theongress, i think president obama is going to have a heck of a time vetoing it, and that's a big issue-- >> rose: and if he does? i mean, if he doesn't veto it? what will the chinese do and where does it take us? >> well, you can't forget one critical thing. we don't save a nickel in
americ, courtesy of trillion-dollar budget deficits our savings position is going to get worse, so our biggest lender our biggest provider of surplus savings from overseas are the chinese. we put trade sanctions on them they will not show up at treasury auction. the dollar will crash. long-term interest rates will shoot up, and wll be back in the soup again. i appear in front of the congress several times a year. i've done it the last five, six years. i talk about thi it goes in one ear out the other. they don't seem to scare. they want a scapecoat for the pressures, the very legitimate and palpable pressures bearing down on middle-class american workers. china is the economy. >> rose: you supported president obama. >> i did, i voted for him. >> rose: what do you think of his stewardship of the economy? >> he inherited a total mess. this crisis had been building for a long, long time, an
outgrowth of reckless behavior from main street to wall street to washington. but, you know, like all these messes, he can blame it on the other guy but it's now his recovery whether he likes it or not. so the challenge will be for him to put in place policies that really give us a better process of economic organization, sustainable healing. >> rose: they say they've turned the economy around. in your judgment, have they? >> i think they put a huge hole-- they plugged a huge hole in the financial system. they seem to have, because of that, instilled better sense of confidence amongst businesspeople and consumers. so the freefall has stopped. the recovery, though, i think is still a ways out, very tentative very fragile, and ultimately very anemic and vulnerable. >> rose: do the chinese see the global economic issues different than the americans do, beyond this sort of consumption
spending issue that's been there before and which you used to sort of provide for many years as a warning? >> well, i think the chinese are using this crisis-- their word for crisis charlie is an interesting word, weji, which means both danger and opportunity. and i think-- but they're looking at this as a time to rethink this global strategy. they've been hugely dependent and successfully so on the u.s. as a main engine driving the external demand that supports their export machine. and so now they-- they're beginning to sense that they-- they need a broader platfm to support their globalization reach. they need to be able to sell those exportsn into you're and
latin america and to africa. they're thinking a lot about resource acquisition strategy in places like australia and south america. >> rose: they're doing a lot of resource acquisition strategy all over the world in terms of energy. >> they're an energy-short nation, and they absolutely need to do this. >> rose: how do they view the united states? i mean, i realize there's no monolithic view. >> they have extraordinary admiration for the united states. they truly do. you know, when i go to china, which is every other week, they continue to talk a lot about our resilience, our flexibility, how they would give anything to have a silicon valley. >> rose: but aren't they trying to develop a silicon valley? >> they've got a few-- >> rose: i'm asking whether there's a commitment to do it,
not whether they've been able to do it. >> they'd like to, but the true silicon valley spirit, the interplay between entrepreneurs and major universities and the creative genius that comes out of that interplay, that takes a long time to build. they don't have that yet. >> rose: but they recognize that. >> they would love to have that. they really would. they've got a few good technology companies but there are few. >> rose: does that cause you to say, look, not withstanding everything that's said about the economic growth level in comparison between the united states and chine and india, do not count america out because it has this entrepreneurial, creative, risk-taking instinct? >> absolutely. that's our strength. you know, when we're faced with a problem that forces us to look inside of ourselves, we can be a very resilient, tough place. but, you know, when we pretend that these problems that we have
are not important, we can get ourselves in a real mess. >> rose: what's our biggest problem? >> i think our biggest problem was we spent 12 years growing well beyond our means, funding those-- that growth by borrowing against asset bubbles. and that was phony growth, charlie. >> rose: and now we look at a deficit like we've never seen before. >> and because of that, we built up excesses in the financial system, excesses in the real economy. that's the key to this crisis. this was not just a financial problem, a wall street problem. this is a problem that had a horrible interplay between the real economy and the financial economy. so it all has become-- >> rose: what does that mean a horrible interplay? >> consumers. the american consumer. moved up to 71.5% of overall g.d.p. in the united states, is still there today. the savings rate went to zero for the first time since the
1930s. a lot of people say, "well, americans are saving again." the savings rate numbers just came out for the month of august. 3%. that's not much. we've got to take that savings rate, given the retirement that's looming for 77 million baby boomers, that saving rate's got to go back up to seven, eight, 9%. >> rose: you're more optimistic for china's future than the united states? >> i think right now the path china is on is much more impressive. they're running their financial system much more prudently. and i think the balance sheet for the private economy is in better shape. they do have a lot of issues, though. i don't want to just paint a rosy picture. >> rose: what are those issues, beyond what you've already talked about, in terms of--. >> i just go back to the premiere on diagnosis.
this is probably the most unbalanced economy of any of the big economies in the world today. and they're compounding the imbalances as we speak. and this crisis to me is all about the unsustainability of imbalances. >> rose: and what is their geopolitical ambition? >> i think we make too much out of it. they have a big standing army. the army, i think, mainly is an army that is focused on defense, as opposed to offense. the one issue that has always been a big risk factor for china has been taiwan. there's been big political change in taiwan with the change in leaderships. i think that issue has been defused. i'm not worried about china as a military threat. and i realize that there are experts at the pentagon that say next to the u.s. china is investing more in i.t.-enabled military capabilities and that we should worry about this.
i don't see that. >> rose: you have said that the wall street you know is not the wall street that the president seems to speak about. >> i did say that because i think the president has gone too far in making this exetive compensation issue, the bonus issue, the lynchpin of his critique against wall street. he describes people getting bonuses, taking risks, and bng reckless and insensitive and irresponsible for the implications of their actions, that have major impacts on the broad society. it's a culture of-- as he describes it-- one of self-centered insensitivity, motivated by a desire for material acquisitions. there's a lot of money that's been made on wall street. i don't deny that. but i do not see that-- those
values in the company that i've been in for 27 years. every company has some-- >> rose: but didn't your company get? trouble because it took too many risks and got too much engaged in trading and support of certain kind of-- >> we made major mistakes in risk management. was that because of our bonus system or because we simply did not appreciate the risks that were embedded in the assets? >> rose: clearly, it was the later. nobody understood the risk eed in the assets very well. few did, but not many. did you? >> look, i-- >> rose: did you? >> as the firm's chief economist i was out there. >> rose: out there doing what? >> certainly warning about a very serious buildup of excess in our economy, and in our financial system, and very reckless policies that were supporting that. did i think that this was going
to blow up in the way that it did with the demise of so many of these once-proud firms that, that the investment banking system would be turned inside out? no way. >> rose: the conventional wisdo is the following-- you tell me whether you believe it or not-- you're making risk decisions, leveraging like crazy, sometimes 40:1-- whatever it might be. and you're looking across the street and somebody else is doing that and seeming to be successful and you have say i have the demands of people looking at my stock and i have to make sure i have the same kind of earnings performance and we take risks. is that the core of what went wrong? >> i think it's an oversimplification, charlie. i really do. we're a very competitive industry so when we see one company doing well, we look at it, but we're all different companys--. >> rose: and you take more risk than you might? >> i don't think it's that automatic. we look carefully at what the competition does, but our dna is
different than theirs. we have strengths that other company don't have, and they have strengths that we don't vo and we try to find what we do best and stay with it, but we are not perfect. we made big mistakes, and we certainly regret those and our share price reflects that. >> rose: paul vogel is in favor of commercial banks and hedge funds and certain other kinds of trading companies being distinct from commercial banks. commercial banks should have a "too big to fail" provision to them but certainly not investment banks in terms of trading activities and hedge funds and all that. you buy that? >> look, paul voke ser my hero. as an economist-- you don't have too many heroes. i can't be critical of anything that the guy says. what he's saying is the inastructure of the financial system needs to be viewed as a public utility where, you know, deposits are secure, transactions are secure.
and then there's this risk-taking activity. >> rose: let them go live by their own-- >> there is some truth to that. >> rose: some truth to it or he's right and, therefore, the administration is wrong because they're not going as far as he's willing to go? >> i think it's a complex problem. what's missing in the debate that drives me nuts is going back to the very function of central banking that's at the core of our financial system. do we have the right model for the fed to go forward, and i think we've minimized the role that the custodians, the sturdz of our financial sfederal reserve, played in leading to this crisis, and in making sure that it will never happen again. i think we've had horrible central banking in the united states for thea past dozen years
we elevate our central bankers-- >> rose: from greenspan to bernanke. >> we call them maestro, make them larger than life. the fact is they condoned policies that took us from one bubble to another. they failed to live up to their regulatory responsibility granted them by law. they concocked new theories to explain why these things could go on forever and harbored the belief, mistakenly in my view, that monetary policy is too big a blunt an instrument so you bring it in to clean up the mess afterwards. look at the mess we're in right now. we need a different approach. we do. >> rose: monday, the cohen brothers on their latest movie. >> we grew up in a midwestern jewish community. 1967 is when we were kids. in terms of the actual story, what happens to the characters, it's not autobiography. >> rose: have you heard some criticisms saying this is kind of a grotesque stereotyping? >> we hear that a lot. ( laughter )
>> that's nothing new here. >> actually, it's true, to a certain extent, i think we were expecting it a little more on this and got it a little less. >> yeah, yeah. >> than we have on some other movies. any time you get specific with people's, you know, ethnicity or religion or in terms of sort of coming up with a character or context for characters, there's going to be somebody who barks about it. >> what's going on? >> i didn't want it. danny said he could use it. >> that is so unfair! >> i'll tell you what's unfair is them not letting me play in their card game. i know about the records. >>ou think he buys records from mike siegel. >> saving up for a nose job. >> wt! >> brat. >> nobody in this house is geing a noise job, you got that. >> rose: peter king is here,
writer for "sports illustrated," and the popular column "monday morning quarterback." he has a new book that chronicles everything from football to... i am pleased to have peter king back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. appreciate it. >> rose: tell me what the state of the nfl is, in your view. >> i've covered the nfl for 25 years, charlie, and one of the things i've always noticed as it's gotten bigger and bigger and bigger was a burjening game, you know, comes burgeoning problems. and that's what they have right now. and as we sit here, i don't think anybody knows for sure whether they're going to be playing football in 2011 or not. there's a work stoppage that i believe is on the horizon. there are so many issues between the players and owners right now. the players do not trust that the owners are these indigent--
you know, we are,un, in trouble, and our stadiums have cost too much. and the owners, on the other hand, don't think the players are looking at their side of the business and saying that, geez, you goiz have gone out on a limb and over the last 10 years built 21 new stadiums. so we should really help you. and we should have some symphony for stanley snyder in washington having a $60 million debt payment every year even before they open the doors to their stadiums in washington and houston. i think there are complex issues right now and they're a long way from solving them. >> rose: tell us how big it is, the nfl? >> i'll give you a good example. when i started covering the nfl in 1984 in cincinnati, i covered the team in cincinnati with two other people, and almost the whole year, except for game days when television stations would come, there were basically three
people around the team as the media. and that's in cincinnati. it's a smaller market, but i went to the pittsburgh steelers training camp this year, and the day that i was there, there were 10 tlooef acreditted media there. now, pittsburgh and cincinnati are not all that much different. and we are in a-- in a sports world now where everything that the nfl does is under a great microscope, both for good and for bad. and i just think the game has grown so big that everybody wants to know about it. everybody wants to hear about it. it's hard to really get to know players the way i used to get to know them. because there's so much of a crush of people around them. but i think it's the best product, sports product in the country for a very simple reason-- every sunday is sudden death. every sudden, you know, at 7:00, you say, "oh, my gosh! did you see that?"
and that is the real kind of drama you just can't get in other sports right now. >> rose: how big is the television package? >> they split the television equally. each team in the nfl each year gets about $95 million from an equal split of the television pie. in essence, every team right now is paying about 50% to 60% of its bills from network television. and that's another reason why they've done such a good job over the years. i mean, now going into satellite and going into things like the red zone channel, which shows you-- >> rose: i know-- >> the best of every game. it's amazing. >> rose: it is amazing. >> that channel right there is addictive. >> rose: it is. >> i watched it this past sunday and you can't even-- you have to go to the bathroom and you say, "i can't leave. wait a minute, they're going to score." >> rose: every time a team gets within 20 yards of the goal they show it. >> and the two teams are there and they'll split the screen. >> rose: and they show you every touchdown, don't they?
it's quite amazing. >> there's nothing like sunday afternoons in the fall, at least for me. it's so much fun to watch this and watch the drama unfold. >> rose: do you want to be at home in front of the television or do you want to be on the field? >> you know, charmy, jerry jones did something astounding, i think, with this new stadium, $1.2 billion. i tudor it last year, and i was talking to him about it, and i said, "jerry, this is unlike anything i've ever seen. there's a 165-foot-high wide television set in there that you can sit up on and gawk on. i asked tony romo about it. and he said i looked up up there and thought i should have shaved today. what's so interesting is jerry jones built this stadium and built it the way he did-- garish huge, bigger than life, giant screens here, creature comforts there-- and he did it for one reason. because he's afraid of football becoming studio sport. he's afraid of men 25-49 saying, you know what?
it's raining out there today. i'm going to stay in my man cave with my big tv and have three or four beers and watch the game on tv rather than going out to the stadium. he said that's the danger in our sport. tv is so wonderful right now, you don't want people to stay at home. you want them to come out. people that go to that stayed yup, even if the cowboys are out of it late in the year, they're going to be so excited, jerry's plan she wants people to come to the game even if the cowboys aren't-- >> rose: it has to be a big event to do other things than watch the game, too. michael vick. >> charlie, he had to be allowed back in the nfl. if you live in the united states and you go to jail for any reason and you get out of jail, you should be allowed to practice whatever craft, whatever job you had before you went in. now, if 32 nfl owners say we don't want him, that's life. then michael vick has got to go
dig ditches. but the fact is there are three or four teams interested in him, and interested in him so much they risked the wrath of their ticket hold erdz and all the local community. and to me i think that if the minute you say a guy, for whatever the crime is, is not allowed to come back in as a furchlgzing member of our society, you don't live in america anymore. >> rose: so how is he going to do? >> he's marginalized a little bit in philadelphia because donovan mcnab is the big star there and should be. but i think he's going to play a good role. he'll make some plays for the eagles as the season goes on. there's this new kind of sexy formation in football called the wildcat formation where a running back or somebody very quick instead of the regular quarterback takes the snap from center and goes back and does a bunch of razzle-dazzle. andy reid the coach of the eaglewill figure out a way to use vick. >> rose: the nfl so far this year, what surprise you, in
terms of teams' perform apses, players. >> the denver broncos, we all thought they were going to be orphans of the storm. they hire a 32-year-old coach be a protege of bill belichick. they trade off their star quarterback who is going to be the next dan faust. and they don't have a great quarterback. they take chicago's quarterback, kyle orton, who has never been a great quarterback in the nfl. they come out and they're playing well on offense and have areat defense. i think the other team that is surprising is cincinnati because the bengals have always been the poor step child in that division. they've unified behind their defensive coordinator mike nolan. >> rose: what do you think of the jets? >> i like the jets. >> rose: do you like sanchez? >> i like sanchez a lot. the great thing about sanchez he's a rookie but his brain is of a seventh or eighth year guy. that's fro playing a good ogram in u.s.c.
coached by pete carroll in college. i think he has a chance to be really good for a long time. here's one thing i like about him-- a couple of weeks ago "sports illustrated" wanted to do a big piece on sanchez, and they said go in there and spend a couple of days with him. and he said, no, i'm not doing it. i haven't done anything yet. if it's a story about the team i'll talk to you, but i'm not doing it about myself. >> rose: is ely as good as peyton? >> i don't think he is, but he's playing by far the best he's ever played in his career. i talked to ely, and the great story him going home to play in the superdome several blocks from his house in new orleans where he went to every game as a kid and he always dreamed of how cool it would be to play there. he never played a game there, high school, college, or pro so he gets a chance to play there now. the one interesting thing about eli all along he's had this sort of hang-dog look, this oh, well, kind of woe is me. you see him on the field.
he doesn't look like a great leader. but in fact you talk to the guys he plays with, incredible locker room prankster. he's taken the cell phones of guys and changed the language to spanish, and they pick up their phone, and say, what, is this hola stuff?" he's so good at just being one of the guys that you would have no idea whatsoever that-- >> rose: he's the leader in the huddle. >> very much so. quietly. quieter than peyton. but they know who the boss is. >> rose: peyton is the most valuable player in the league? >> without a doubt. the amazing thing about peyton manning and the thing i admire so much about him is he loses his coach, who was a great security blanket, tony dungy. he loses one of the great receivers of this day, marvin harrison, who had beens his total go-to guy for the first 11 12 years of his career. and now he's got a young kim kidfrom brigham young, austin coal you from a tiny school in
ohio, he has a tight end and receiver of some note. he's got these new guys and yet he's playing better than he ever has in his life. and you talk to him and you ask him why and i think what he says is he feels like when he goes back to throw the ball, he doesn't have to focus on one guy. he just looks for the open guy. >> rose: is there-- can you look at the quarterbacks that are in the league today and say here is the nodle of the future? that's a great question. i think the model of the future is a guy who should be a little bit more mobile-- >> rose: exactly. >> than peyton. if peyton had 10%, 15% more quickness-- i'm not even talking michael vick type-- but if he were just a little bit more athletic, i think that would be the exact model. what peyton has that nobody has, maybe, except for tom brady right now, is the ability to be a univac at the line of scrimmage. he goes to the line, and, charlie, in the span of about
four or five seconds, peyton man category go to the line of scrimmage and by his signals, either verbal or hands, he can pick out formations and everything of about-- from about 15 plays in the span of six or seven seconds. and everybody on the field, they have to be in tune to know what they're doing. >> rose: what does he do when he goes down the line? what's he doing-- >> when he's going down the line most often, you're in a stadium that it's too loud. he's on the road so he's in a dome, maybe, and they're yelling so loud that he can't here, so he has to go down to everybody and say, "orange, orange, orange or whatever, and then, charlie, this is what's so interesting about it. let's say they're playing the tennessee tight expansion there's two guys on that defense who played with peyton manning for a long time. >> rose: they know what orange means. >> they know what orange means. so now he's got to go, "cleveland, cleveland." he has to change his signals during the week at practice. and he has to say, "guys, it's not orange this week, it's
cleveland, or orono." >> rose: how did peyton manning get that way because he was archy manning's son. >> he was a football nerd. tony dungy said he's a nerd. he's the bigest nerd there is. but in a good way. when he was a kid, archy used to take tom game films from the saints and watch them on the wall and peyton would sit there and watch. it's the same thing bill belichick did in annapolis, maryland. his dad was an assistant coach at navy. he'd watch film at home, and his mom was a college professor-- retired but a college professor. so he had the intelligence on one side and the football immersion on the other side. no wonder he's a genius. >> rose: kobe bryant was the same way. his father was a player. and phil jackson said to me he s the only player to ever coach who after the game would insist on having a copy, a dvd, or whatever it was, to take back to his hotel room so he could
watch the game. he wanted to see the game. i don't think that's ego. i think it's a process, an obsession with the game. >> i think that's one of things now that you see i more and more quarterbacks. when these guys have a road game charlie, they get on the plane will have their little personal dvd player, and they'll literally-- they'll play the game. the coaches and the players, when they get on the plane, they will have already self-scouted on the plane on the way home. >> rose: we've got all this analysis of the game now. i stl don't know-- and this is a question-- whether we really appreciate how complicated it is. it is still fundamentals as lombardi would tell us. it is blocking and tackling. but at the same time, it is so damn complicated. >> there's no doubt about it. and i think that one of the things that football players-- it's underrated because a lot of times you just see them out there banging into each other and you don't really get a good sense that when you're around a
team on wednesy or thursday, they'll spend four or five hours in and out of meetings, brief meetings, the quarterbacks meeting with each other to talk about what they're going to do that day at practice and what exactly is in the game plan. then maybe two hours of practice. and then they're back in for a couple more meetings. and one of the things that i've always thought about football that i say eye once did this thing with brett farve where i did 40 seconds to the start of a play, and what he does. and, charlie, when i finished the story, from the start of the play to the end, the story was 8900 words long. and that's to dissect what happens in 40 seconds. and i often said, i could have written 89,000 words because the things that cause players-- cause plays to succeed or fail, oftentimes it's only one little
ing. >> rose: one block here. >> one block here, one missed assignment there. it's amazing. you talk to eli manning and one of the things he'll say about why he's having success now is the plays that didn't work with his former receivers, plaxico burress, jeremy shockey, now work with this new wave of receivers who america has never heard of-- steve smith-- >> rose: and what do they have? >> what they have is a little bit more down-field quickness and a little bit more ability to get open, a little bit more-- mario manningham was a big-time player at michigan for a little while. he has more of an innate sense than some of the veteran receivers they had there. and i think even though guys guys like plaxico burress were very good, they maybe didn't have the natural athletic skills that a quick guy like steve guy or maybe a faster guy like mario manningham had. you always are surprised by things that happen every year in the nfl, and i think that one of
the things that i love about covering it is that i could pick out 100 stories right now, that i wish i had two or three days to dig into. because it's so interesting. >> rose: exactly. wide receivers, what separates the best, obviously is speed, but what is it that makes the best receive sner is it soft hands? >> i believe that right up there-- obviously, you have to have t hands. i believe that a very big part of a great receiver is fearlessness. and i think that has to be part of the dna for every receiver in the nfl right now because the defensis coming at these guys saying, "come on, we're going to inintimidate a guy and we're going to see if he'll come back for more." that's a big part of it. and the second thing is you can't underestimate how important it is, the chemistry between you and your quarterback. when the new england patriots in 2007 got wes welker and randy moss, you know, early in the pre-season, they weren't all that impressive because randy
moss thought that tom brady maybe should be throwing it to his opposite shoulder a little bit more. wes welker, he wasn't used to which way brady wanted him to make his cuts. it takes a while for that chemistry to be formed-- >> rose: they both have to know what each can do. >> for instance, charlie, right now if peyton manning sends a receiver out on a route, and all of a sudden he's covered, the receiver cannot just stay covered. he said got to figure out the two or three options he has. if the cornerback is on his outside shoulder he knows he has to curl to the inside. if he's right over the top of him and he's coveredded, he knows he has to make a dart to the sideline. he has to know that, and manning is going to throw the ball before he makes that move. so if he makes the wrong move, manning looks like an idiot-- why are you throwing over there. your guy is not there. >> rose: adrien peterson you say may be as good as walton peyton.
>> i don't think he'll be jim brown. jim brown was a man among poise. walter peyton and adrian peterson are the same. there are very few running backs in history-- i think walter peyton, i think o.j. stimp son-- who were actually adept at running between the tackles and beating people outside. adrien peterson is a sprinter. he can beat people outside but he loves going up head to head with a linebacker. he'll get up-- and nfl films will capture him going whoo-whoo-whoo! a lot of running backs run to the sidelines but adrian loves to get hit. >> rose: who is the best tight end in the business? >> i would say tony gonzaga. even though he's an older guy, charlie, he-- he's about 33 or 34 years old now. he never misses a game. he's tremendously athletic." he got traded to the falcons
this year by the chiefs because the chiefs weren't going anywhere. and the first thing the general manager said to the coaches, "oh my god. he can block." the book on gonzaga was he could never block. so i think he right now would be my state-of-the-art guy. >> rose: the best strong safety? >> i would-- i would probably say-- i'd say the best safety, period, in football right now is ed reid narrowly over troy palamola, the reason for me, strong safety, free safety, you can almost mesh them between. a lot of teams play left and right safeties. you've seen when palamolo was out how much the defense suffered. and i think he and ed reid make the biggest difference right now at the safety position of any two guys in football. >> rose: best coach? >> i would-- i'd find it hard to still argue with bill belichick because i think that he find an answer often times when there isn't one.
but a guy who i believe in the next few years will prove to be one of the future great is john harbal of the baltimoreaven. i think what he does is he does not balk down from his players. he came in, he had a very strong defense, very strong-willed guys and he said in essence-- with respect-- listen i'm the coach and i'm going to make these decisions now. i think they're going to be good for a long time and one of the reasons is free agents who go there wanto play for him. >> rose: this is your top 10 players of all time. don hudson. >> a receiver from 1935 to 1945 with the green bay packers. and everybody says you're nuts. to put him above jerry rice. how you can do that. >> rose: above jim brown! >> above jim brown. when don hudson retired he set a record for touchdown catches that was not brokeen for 44
years. you can say, well, he didn't play against great competition, and that's rht, but, charlie, this is the kauai gooi who twice won the sec 100-yard championship in college. this was not a rummy who was good because he was playing against bad competition. >> rose: number two is otograham. >> if you are a quarterback and you play 10 years of professional football, and you win seven passing championships, anleave-- lead your team to seven championships, there's nobody better. >> rose: jim brown, same team. >> to me, i just think that brown-- >> rose: did they overlap? >> no, they did not overlap. >> rose: graham was gone by then. >> graham was gone in 1955. ground came in, in '57, i think. the thing about jim brown i think that makes him so different is he had sprinter speed but he also was able to run with the brute force of a fullback. >> rose: lawrence taylor. best linebacker. >> i call him the best defensive
player ever because i think of all the guys who have ever played-- and i have tremendous tremendous respect for dick but cuss, it's impossible for a linebacker to get 18 sacks in a year but he did. >> rose: what determines greatness for you is numbers. >> not all together, but i don't ignore-- to me, a middle linebacker getting 18 sacks is totally ridiculous. it doesn't happen because those guys federal officially are not big pass rushers. lawrence taylor was, i think, the best player at his position on defense in nfl history. >> rose: love the game as much today as you did when you first start reporting about football? >> absolutely love it. it's because the stories never end. good and bad. and the personalities in game-- there's 1800 players-- >> rose: and you never know how the story is going to turn out. >> you never know. that's why it's so much fun. ese games are so close. that at the end of every sunday,
you have to take a deep breath and there are three things that shock you. that's what's fun about it. >> rose: peter kipgz's book is called, monday morning quarterback, a fully caffeinated guide to everything you need to know about the nfl." this will be, clearly, if you just think about what you heard at this table in this short 30 minutes, think about what might be here in this book or on monday morning. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org